














































TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES. 


BRIDGING 

THE 

OHIO & MISSISSIPPI RIVERS. 


MEMORIAL 

O F 

CINCINNATI CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. 

0 % 


Testimony of Tilots, ZTnde?'writers, Coal ^Dealers, a?id others 
interested in Navigation. 


Tetters of John si. ‘Roebling, James *B. Jtads, W. Milnor 
Ttoberts, and others. 






















MEMORIAL 


To the Congress of the United States: 

The undersigned, a committee appointed by the Cincinnati 
Chamber of Commerce to memorialize Congress in favor of a 
general law to regulate the construction of bridges over the Ohio 
and Mississippi Eivers, so that they shall not obstruct nor make 
dangerous the navigation thereof, ask leave to say: 

That the citizens whom we represent are interested both in 
the preservation and improvement of the navigation of these 
rivers, and in the extension and perfection of the railroad sys¬ 
tem ; and that, recognizing that the bridging of these rivers is 
requisite to the completeness of the railroad lines, they are in 
favor of their construction wherever business demands them, 
subject to such regulations as will prevent their being made an 
impediment to navigation. 

They believe that it is feasible to accommodate and protect the 
great interests both of navigation and railroads, and, therefore, 
they maintain that there is no necessary antagonism between 
these interests. 

That these rivers, forming, with their tributaries, natural chan¬ 
nels of transportation for half the continent, whose conditions 
are admirably adapted to the most economical carrying of the 
products of the soil, the mines, and the forest are entitled to the 
jealous care of the Nation; and it will be a disastrous and irre¬ 
parable error, if, through the Nation’s negligence, these natural 
channels are permitted to be obstructed by artificial works which 
can never supply their places. 

That the cheapness of transportation on these rivers of the 
heavy and bulky products of the mines, the forest, and the soil, 
which furnish the materials for manufactures, and the facilities 
which this navigation furnishes for distributing the manufac¬ 
tured products, draws, and will always continue to draw, to their 





4 


banks, the great manufacturing business of the country. This 
will make the railroads feeders to the rivers, as well as channels 
of distribution from them; and thus, instead of the trade of the 
rivers being doomed to decay by the introduction and extension 
of railroads, each will contribute to the progress and success of 
the other. And, therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the 
future growth of the business of navigation, in its varied forms, 
will be as certain and great as that of th$ railroads. It would be 
a blind policy which regarded the interests of navigation and of 
railroads as opposed; or which concluded that both are not need¬ 
ed for the future growth and full development of this country, 
and, therefore, that one may be thrown away, or needlessly em¬ 
barrassed and hindered. It will hardly be denied that the inter¬ 
ests of the producer from the soil and mines, the manufacturer, 
and those engaged in commerce, demands the cheapest mode of 
transportation, and that this is to be found on the navigable 
rivers. That in order to preserve the navigation and cheap 
transportation, the channels of the rivers must be kept safe and 
practicable for such craft and such modes of running as are in 
use, and are adapted to the most economical carrying; and that 
the passage must not only be possible, but must not |be hazard¬ 
ous. The negligence, or the mistaken policy, which permits t^ 
obstruction of this navigation by slow and gradual approached 
by the placing of partial impediments here and there, which creA 
ate hazards, place limitations on the kind of water craft used, or 
on their running, and increase the expense of navigation, will as 
certainly be fatal in the end, as if a complete bar were author¬ 
ized. 

Your memorialists have to state that bridges have been author¬ 
ized and built upon the Ohio and Mississippi rivers, which have 
materially increased the hazards and expense of navigation ; 
and that bills are now pending before your Honorable Body to 
authorize the construction of other bridges over the Ohio River, 
which, if constructed, your memorialists believe, will constitute 
such an obstruction to navigation, and will so increase its ex¬ 
penses and hazards, that they will accomplish a long step toward 
the ruin and abandonment of this navigation. They have to 
state — and for the support of this they refer to the testimony 
appended hereto, of the great body of the Ohio River pilots — 
that a bridge span of but three hundred feet, in the rapid current 


5 


of the Ohio River, will make the passage at a high stage of water 
hazardous; will generally cause detention in the night, and du¬ 
ring high winds; and will he impracticable, except at extreme 
risk, for the towed barges which are used for the great transport¬ 
ation on these rivers. The increase to the hazards and to the 
cost of navigation, by the construction of such bridges, which 
will be multiplied if these are allowed, will be so great that only 
an overpowering necessity, which has brought the issue that the 
river navigation must be sacrificed to greater interests, can jus¬ 
tify their permission. 

Your memorialists deny that public necessity has come to such 
an issue; or that the destruction or material obstruction of the 
river navigation, is necessary to allow all needed facilities to the 
crossing of the river by railroads. We have to state, upon high 
engineering authority, and upon the evidence of practical proof, 
that the construction of bridges with channel spans of ,not less 
than five hundred feet is practicable, without an inordinate in¬ 
crease in their cost; and that this length of passage between 
piers, in a rapid river, with such water craft as are used on these 
rivers, is as narrow as they should be subjected to. Your me¬ 
morialists deny that engineering science has reached its ultima¬ 
tum in a bridge span of three hundred feet; or that the negative 
experience, or the backwardness of former ages should now be 
brought up to give progress in engineering a turn backward, for 
the purpose of fixing three hundred feet span as the limit of hu¬ 
man endeavor in bridge building. They also protest that private 
interests, in the considerations of comparatively small differences 
in the cost of bridges, should not be permitted to sacrifice, or im¬ 
peril this great national interest. 

Your memorialists, therefore, respectfully state, that a channel 
of five hundred feet between piers is the least that is compatible 
with reasonable safety to navigation ; that bridges, safe, for any 
use whatever, can be built with such spans without great increase 
of cost; therefore they represent that these are the proper terms 
for the union of the interests of the railroads and of the navi¬ 
gable rivers. They further represent that draw-bridges have 
been found by experience to be so great an obstruction to navi¬ 
gation, and so imperfect a communication for land travel, that it 
is believed the construction of any more of them would now be 
easily abandoned by general consent. 


6 


Your memorialists, therefore, pray for the enactment of a gen¬ 
eral law to authorize and regulate the building of bridges over 
the Ohio and Mississippi rivers, by which they may be construct¬ 
ed wherever needed, upon conditions that they shall have at 
least one channel span, at a right angle with the channel cur¬ 
rent, of not less than five hundred feet; and of not less than 
fifty feet in the clear, above high water mark. 

Your memorialists further refer to the appended testimony as 
to the necessity for these terms in order to protect this naviga¬ 
tion, and as to the feasibility of building bridges subject to these 
conditions. 

R. BUCHAN AM, 

ROBERT MITCHELL, 
MATTHEW ADDY, 

S. LESTER TAYLOR, 

WM. RESOR, 

D. T. WOODROW, 

R. M. BISHOP, 

GEO. F. DAVIS, 

OLIVER PERIN, 

SAM. J. HALE, 

R. B. SMITH, 

WM. HOOPER, 

MILES GREENWOOD, 

H. C. LORD, 

THEO. COOK, 

Committee. 


RESOLUTIONS 


Of the Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce, in the matter of 
Bridging the Western Hirers . 


As an expression of the sense of the Cincinnati Chamber of 
Commerce, in regular meeting assembled, April 13, 1868, touch¬ 
ing the bridging of the Ohio river, be it 

Resolved, That the importance of the navigation of the Ohio river to the 
commerce and manufactures of Cincinnati, and to the Western States, demands 
that the bridging of the rivers for other highways shall he subject to such 
regulations as shall prevent them from obstructing navigation, or making it 
unsafe. 

Resolved, That experience and the progress of engineering science have 
demonstrated that safe and permanent bridges, of a hight and length of span 
that will reduce the obstruction to navigation to the minimum, can be built, 
without requiring of them any impracticable conditions, or subjecting them to 
any inordinate cost; and thus the great public interests of navigation and of 
railroads may all be preserved and accommodated. 

Resolved, That every bridge over the Ohio river should be required to have 
at least one span of not less than five hundred feet over the main channel; 
and that piers which shall narrow the navigation more than this; will be a se¬ 
rious and unjustifiable obstruction and danger. We therefore ask the General 
Assembly of Ohio and the Congress of the United States, to provide that all 
bridges over this river shall be required to have at least one span of not less 
than five hundred feet over the main channel. 

Resolved, That the legislation of Congress in making appropriations for the 
removal, both of natural and artificial obstructions in the navigable rivers 
of the West, is wise and judicious; and we respectfully urge that, while large 
sums are being annually expended for these purposes, neither Congress nor 
any State Legislature shall authorize or permit the creation of obstructions to 
these navigable waters, by bridges, of a character which experience has proved 
to be more dangerous and difficult to be overcome than the snags and bars 
which are being removed. 

Resolved, That we hold it to be the power and duty of Congress to be the 
guardian of the interests of the people of all the States in the great navigable 
rivers; and we respectfully ask that body to enact general regulations for the 
construction of bridges over the Ohio and Mississippi rivers, so that they shall 



8 


have at least one span of not less than five hundred feet over the main channel, 
and a hight sufficient to permit the safe passage of boats at all stages of the 
water. 

The above is a true copy of resolutions, which were unan¬ 
imously adopted, at a regular meeting at the Cincinnati Chamber 
of Commerce, April 14th, 1888. 

JOHN A. CANO, President. 

Geo. A. McLaughlin, Secretary. 


\ 


PETITION. 


To the Congress of the United States: 

The undersigned coal dealers of Cincinnati, beg respectfully to 
represent to your Honorable Body, that bridges built over the 
Ohio river, placed upon piers three hundred feet apart, will be a 
cause of great damage to the coal interest of the West, as is al¬ 
ready proved by the bridge at Steubenville, where heavy losses 
in coal as well as other property annually occur. Aside from 
the actual losses of property occurring at this obstruction at 
Steubenville, there is a heavy loss sustained by those who are 
engaged in the coal towing business, by reason of the detention 
of boats and barges, in the night time, and during high winds 
when it is positively unsafe to attempt the passage of these 
bridge piers. In order to pass tows safely through these piers, 
it is often necessary to employ an additional steamer, which in¬ 
volves considerable cost in money, as well as much loss of time. 
The cost of running a fully equipped and manned tow boat, is 
from $200 to $300 per day. This cost does not include the inter¬ 
est on money invested in the boat and barges, varying from 
$30,000 to $75,000 for each boat with ller complement of barges, 
nor for depreciations, wear and tear and insurance on this prop¬ 
erty. Therefore, we represent, that this detention in passing 
bridge piers, involves a heavy outlay to the owners of coal tow 
boats and barges, and must necessarily be added to the cost of 
the coal at its point of destination. We further represent that 
experience proves, that b,y increasing the size of the boats and 
barges, and the number towed by each boat, that the cost of tran¬ 
sporting the coal is lessened, and that for this reason the size of 
tows is constantly being increased, so that now a boat tows twice 
the quantity of coal that she would have transported ten years 
ago. 

Many of the tows of the largest coal tugs now in use, have a 



10 


width on the surface of the water of 192 feet, and a length of 450 
feet, and contain 16 barges of say 11,500 bushels each, or 184,000 
bushels, making 7,360 tons in the aggregate. It will be clear to 
the mind of every person familiar with the navigation of the 
Ohio river, with its strong current in high water, that it is very 
difficult and dangerous for such tows to pass bridge piers only 
three hundred feet apart. It must also be remembered that the 
towing business is mainly done at the seasons of the year when 
the river is at What is called a high stage : and that there is a 
constant tendency to increase the power and capacity of the 
boats and barges used, and the quantity of coal contained in a 
single tow. 

Many millions of capital are now invested in the coal mines, 
tow boats and barges on the Ohio river, and it is believed that 
the consumption of coal is doubling, and will continue to double 
every ten years. The certainty of obtaining constant supplies of 
cheap fuel, is inducing large investments in the various branches 
of manufacturing in the cities and towns along the Ohio and 
Mississippi rivers; and we ask that Congress shall not permit 
bridges to be built over these rivers of such a character as to im¬ 
pede and render dangerous these natural channels, now so exten¬ 
sively used for transportation. 

The fact is undeniable, and is well known to all coal dealers, 
and to manufacturers that the Steubenville bridge imposes a tax 
upon every bushel of coal which passes its piers, and that this 
tax is in the end paid by the consumer. If the number of 
bridges is multiplied, the tax will be increased in proportion. 

Your petitioners further state, that they have no desire to pre¬ 
vent the connection of railroads terminating on opposite sides of 
the river, but that they cheerfully grant the right of bridging 
the river, for this or any other purpose, provided that it be done 
in such manner as to leave navigation reasonably safe; and that 
this navigation will not be safe where the bridge piers are less 
than five hundred feet apart over the channel, or where the 
bridge has a less height than fifty feet above high-water mark. 

Your petitioners, therefore, believing that it is both the right 
and duty of Congress to exercise supreme control in this matter, 
pray for the passage of a general law, by which bridges may be 
built over the Ohio and Mississippi rivers, wherever needed, with 


11 


at least one span over the main channel of not less that five hun¬ 
dred feet between the main piers, and not less than fifty feet 
high at high-water mark. 

And your petitioners will ever pray, etc. 

THOS. DODSWORTH. 

R. B. SMITH & CO. 

P. MOULTON. 

JOHN COCHNOWER. 

MARMET & CO. 

ROSS, PETTIBONE & CO. 

W. Q. ADAMS & CO. 

FOOTE & DONALDSON. 

A. BUCHANAN. 


JAMES C. BLICK. 

Gr. W. C. JOHNSTON. 
WM. F. IRWIN. 

L. H. SAROENT & CO. 

M. T. DELORAC. 

WM. W. STONE & CO. 
LEVY & FRANK. 
JOSEPH SMITH, Jr. 
WM. M. HUBBELL, 


i 



OPINION OF WESTERN RIVER PILOTS. 


Cincinnati, May 6th, 1868. 

We, the undersigned, licensed pilots on the Ohio river, hereby declare that 
it would be difficult and dangerous for us to navigate large and heavily laden 
Steamboats, and boats with tows of barges, between the piers of a bridge 
having a span of only three hundred feet between the piers over the channel, 
even though the bridge was built at right angles to the current, and the piers 
in a line with the current. 

While this danger and obstruction at a low stage of the river would be com¬ 
paratively small, it would be increased with the rise of water in the river, until 
at a stage of twenty feet and upwards, when the heavy business, especially in 
towing, is done, it would be very serious. We regard it as clear to the mind 
of any sensible river man and navigator, that the placing of five or six piers 
within the banks of our narrow river, will, by dividing the water at the piers, 
create “cross currents” and “eddies” dangerous to navigation. The water 
above the piers will be higher than below, and the force of the current materi¬ 
ally increased, varying of course with the stage of water. To be reasonably 
safe, the length of span should be five hundred feet. 


David Blashford. 

A Pilot 40 years. 

Alsabid Jolly.A Pilot 22 

years, 

James C. Johnston... 

u 

43 

ii 

John Morbridge. 

ii 

16 

it 

H. S. Williams. 

u 

33 

ii 

H. B. Bobinson. 

it 

12 

it 

Solomon Catterlin... 

u 

31 

u 

James Nichlos. 

it 

8 

it 

Wm. H. Early. 

u 

20 

ii 

Thomas Bobo. 

ii 

8 

it 

•Brison Pursell. 

a 

25 

ii 

Charles E. Keating.. 

ii 

5 

u 

John Gray. 

ti 

25 

a 

John Jolly. 

ii 

38 

ii 

Oscar B. Jolly. 

ll 

12 

u 

G. W. Burks,. 

ti 

27 

ii 

C. B. Brasher... 

(( 

37 

ii 

John R. Sullivan.... 

ii 

14 

ii 

John T. Carroll. 

n 

20 

ii 

James Prater. 

u 

20 

ii 

Thos. Varner. 

u 

39 

ii 

B. F. Ogle. 

u 

20 

u 

S. P. Fawcett.., 

it 

12 

u 

Geo. B. Pollard. 

a 

14 

it 

Joseph McCullough 

n 

8 

ii 

J. C. Mulrine . 

ii 

21 

it 

J. D. Paul. . . 

n 

8 

ii 

John H. Stewart . 

ti 

24 

it 

G. W. Hukill. 

u 

15 

ii 

Benj. A. Frazer. 

a 

12 

it 

I. B. Witters. 

u 

15 

ii 

W. H. Harrison. 

ti 

16 

it 

E. H. Chapman. 

■ll 

22 

ii 

A. H. Smith. 

ti 

15 

ii 

A. Magee. 

ll 

6 

ii 

D. Dunseath. 

it 

28 

it 

James Dickery.. 

it 

6 

it 

Aaron M. Jordan.... 

u 

28 

« 

G. H. Clark-. 

ll 

28 

it 

Joseph H. Williams 

u 

31 

it 

m 







































13 


William A. Gregg. 

..A Pilot 19 

years. 

Ben. F. Hall. 

n 

18 

u 

A. S. Crane. 

« 

20 

u 

Henry Pudder. 

tt 

13 

tt 

John M. Snyder.... 

it 

12 

tt 

John Ferguson. 

it 

37 

u 

Jacob Remlein. 

tt 

30 

it 

W. F. Randolph— 

it 

18 

u 

R. M. Henderson... 

it 

8 

u 


J. P. Schoonover...., 


8 

years, 

Samuel I. Spence... 

« 

13 

u 

Thomas J. Bruce..... 

u 

28 

u 

James A. Frazier..., 

u 

20 

tt 

Wm. F. Fuller. 

u 

10 

a 

William Metcalf. 

Cl 

12 

it 

Andy S. Frazier. 

It 

25 

a 

James S. Frazier_ 

u 

1 

a 

Moses Kirkpatrick.. 

u 

13 

u 


i 




















PROCEEDINGS 


Of the Cincinnati Board of 77?iderwriters on the Cincinnati 
and Newport Bridge Question . 


Cincinnati, April 18, 1868. 

To the Cincinnati Board of Underwriters: 

Gentlemen : — As the question of bridging the Ohio river, between Cincin¬ 
nati and Newport, Ky., is attracting much attention on the part of our citi¬ 
zens, we address you for the purpose of learning from your Board if a bridge 
at the point named, built upon piers three hundred (300) feet apart, will, in 
your judgment, create such an obstruction in the river, as to require the In¬ 
surance Companies to charge increased rates for insurance on the hulls of ves¬ 
sels, and property carried on them; and if so, what increased length of span 
should be adopted for bridging the Ohio river, both here and elsewhere, so as 
to leave the river reasonably safe for the purposes of navigation. 

Respectfully, 

ROBERT HOSEA & SONS. 

TRABER & AUBERY. 

BABBITT, HARKNESS & CO. 

R. M. BISHOP & CO. 

M. GREENWOOD. 

DAVID GIBSON & CO. 

WM. GLENN & SONS. 

WM. RESOR & CO. 

AND OTHERS. 


Cincinnati, April 20, 1868. 

Messrs. Robert Hosea § Son, Traber $ Aubery, Babbitt , Harkness § Co., M. 
Greenwood, David Gibson ^ Co., Wm. Glenn $ Sons, R. M. Bishop § Co., 
Wm. Resor § Co., and others: 

Gentlemen: —In reply to your letter of April 18, asking the opinion of 
the Board of Underwriters of this city, if the construction of a Pier Bridge 
across the Ohio, with three hundred feet space between the piers, would so 
obstruct the navigation as to require an advance rate of premium on boats and 
their cargoes plying between Cincinnati and Pittsburgh, — at a meeting of the 
Board, held at their rooms April 20, 1868, the following Resolutions were 




15 


unanimously adopted by the Board, and are herewith enclosed as an answer to 
your communication: 

“ Resolved , That it is is the deliberate and settled opinion of the Cincinnati 
Board of Underwriters, that a bridge built across the Ohio river, between the 
cities of Cincinnati and Newport, Ky., with piers in the river three hundred 
feet apart, would prove a serious and dangerous obstruction to the navigation 
of the river; and that all Underwriters, in justice to their stockholders, will 
be obliged to charge increased rates for the insurance of property passing 
these piers. 

“ Resolved , That it is the judgment of the members of this Board, that 
where bridges are built over the Ohio river, that, in order to leave the navi¬ 
gation of the river reasonably safe, there should be a main span over the chan¬ 
nel not less than five hundred feet long.” 

Respectfully yours, 

JN0. BURGOTNE, 'President pro tem. 

Jno. J. Hooker, Secretary. 


"We concur in the foregoing action of the Board of Underwriters. 
LOCAL HsTSTTUe,AAI5rOH] COMPANIES.. 


Western Insurance Company .*..T. F. Eckert, President. 

Enterprise “ “ ..Thos. Sherlock, “ 

National u u ....John Burgqyne, “ 

Queen City u u ___Geo. W. Neare, “ 

Crescent “ “ .....J. W. Batchelor, u 

Miami Valley Insurance Company .Jos. S. Ross, u 

People’s “ “ .J. B. Lawder, M 

Burnet “ “ ..Jno. S. Taylor, jr., Secretary. 

Hamilton County “ u Col. J. Kennett, President. 

Merchants’ and Manuf’s’ Ins. Co., .B. B. Whiteman, “ 

Eclipse Insurance Company .J. J. Livingston, 11 

Farmers’ and Mechanics’ Insurance Co.C. J. W. Smith, “ 

Cincinnati Insurance Company .G. W. Williams, “ 

Merchants’ “ u .J. C. Thomas, u 

Ohio Valley u m ..J. A. Devou, u 

Lafayette “ u .Howard Mathews, “ 

Magnolia 11 “ .C. H. Marshal, Secretary. 

Commercial “ “ .J. A. Townley, “ 

Citizens’ “ “ . .Th. G. Odiorne, President. 

Central “ “ .Francis Ferry, 11 

Eureka •“ “ .Dan. Collier, “ 

Boatmen’s 11 “ ..........,.^.B. F. Davidson, 11 



















16 




Globe Insurance Company .Dean, President. 

Franklin “ “ .C. E. Demarest, Secretary. 

Farmers’ “ “ .M. Hollinghead, “ 

American “ “ .L. Clason, “ 

Union “ “ .A. C. Edwards, “ 

Adams “ “ .John N- Newton, “ 

Tobacco “ “ .Sam’l L. Yourtee, “ 

Eagle “ “ .Sam’l P. Post, “ 

Germania “ “ .J. H. Carter, President. 

Firemen’s “ “ * .H. E. Spencer, “ 

Washington “ “ .Wm. Goodman, “ 

Buckeye.State Ins. Co.,. W. P. Hulbert, “ 

^Etna Insurance Company, of Hartford...J. B. Bennett, Manager. 

Phcenix Insurance Co., of Hartford.H. M. Magill, Gen’l Agent. 

Wm. B. French & Co. 

Chas. Bonsall & Sons, Delaware M. S. Ins. Co. 

Owen Owens, State Insurance Co., of Cleveland. 

Wm. E. Brown &. Co. 

John S. Law. 

John H. Law. 

Jacob Burnet, jr. 

Oliver Palmer, Marine Agent Underwriters.. 














STATEMENT OF LEADING MERCHANTS. 


As charges have been made, that the opposition to short-span 
bridges came from parties whose interests were opposed to such 
bridges, and were therefore based upon selfish considerations, the 
following statement, signed by a large number of leading mer¬ 
chants, manufacturers, and bankers, of Cincinnati, is submitted 
as evidence of the untruthfulness of such statements: 


Cincinnati, April 18 , 1868 . 

It having been charged, that the opposition to the projected Newport and 
Cincinnati Bridge, with a span of three hundred feet, has “been started, ma¬ 
noeuvred, and kept in motion” by “large owners in the Newport and Cincin¬ 
nati Ferry, the Covington and Cincinnati Bridge, and the Mail Line of Steam¬ 
boats,” the undersigned feel it to be their duty to state, that while they stand 
in opposition to a bridge at this city of less span than five hundred feet, be¬ 
lieving that such span is entirely practicable, and safe, and that responsible 
parties are ready to build the said bridge with such span, that they have not 
been influenced in this opinion by any stockholder of any of the organizations 
named above; but that their ground of objection is based entirely upon the 
fact that a bridge with piers only three hundred feet apart will prove a very 
serious obstruction to the safe navigation of the river, thereby inflicting great 
damage to the mercantile and manufacturing interests of our city. The de¬ 
cisive and unanimous action of the Chamber of Commerce, after a full and 
free discussion of the whole subject, participated in by both sides, we regard as 
a fair expression of opinion on this subject. 

We also beg leave to state, that we are not owners, or in any way interested, 
in the Newport Ferry Company, the Covington Bridge Company, or the Mail 
Line Steamboats. 


John Shillito. 

Tweed & Andrews. 

Mitchell & Rammelsberg Furniture 
Co., by Robert Mitchell. 

Drown, Douglass & Co. 

Wm. Glenn & Sons. 

Jos. S. Cleneay & Co. 

Addy, Hull & Co. 

Wm. Cleneay & Sons. 

White, Brother & Co. 


James A. Frazer & Co. 
Wells, Jones & Co. 

Silas F. Miller. 
Wilshire, Huston & Co. 
Wilshire & Co. 

R. Macready & Co. 
Babbitt, Harkness & Co 
Meader & Co. 

Proctor & Gamble. 
Gibson, Early & Co. 




18 


Bare, Sliinkle & Howell. 

S. H. Burton & Co. 

Evans, Clifton & Co. 

G. W. Ball & Co. 

Hobbs & Parker. 

Wilson & Hayden. 

Wm. Besor & Co. 

Bobt. Hosea & Sons. 

Jas. S. Burdsall & Co. 

Means, Kyle & Co. 

Cin., Big Sandy & Pomeroy Packet 
Co., by T. H. Johnson, Sec’ty. 

A. O: Tylor. 

John D. Minor & Co. 

L. II. Sargent. 

Charles Bodmann. 

C. & C. Mendenhall. 

Bed way & Burton. 

David Gibson & Co. 

Straight, Deming & Co. 

Augustus Wessel. 

Bowland & Co. 

James Bradford & Co. 

B. Hemingray & Co. 

N. M. Elorer. 

A. M. Bryson. 

Stearns & Foster. 

D. H. Mears. 

J. T. Warren & Co. 

James H. Laws & Co. 

G. W. Williams. 

T. Heave & Sons. 

Wm. Hooper. 

Titus & Sterrett. 

D. H. Hunnewell. 

D. A. James. 

Horne, Semple & Co. 

Bobert Moore & Co. 

Joseph Kinsey. 

B. M. Bishop & Co. 

M. Werk & Co. 

H. Patterson & Co. 

Ohio Biver Salt Co. 

Geo. D. Winchell, Upson & Co. 

Boyer Wheel Co. 

Buckingham & Mathers. 


B. B. Smith & Co. 

Oliver Perin. 

Evans, Lippincott & Cunningham. 
Traber & Aubery. 

Lawrence Iron Wcrks, by B. S. Be- 
son. 

John Bailie & Co. 

P. Moulton. 

Dubois & Augur. 

H. Grotenkemper & Co. 

G. Y. Boots. 

J. C. Thomas. 

Geo. Taylor. 

Bichard Smith. 

Geo. W. Heare. 

Thos. Emery’s Sons. 

Wm. Fletcher. 

Francis Ferry. 

J. F. Cunningham & Co. 

Benneville & Kline. 

C. J. W. Smith. 

W. H. Gilpin. 

Geo. W. Phillips, Jr. 

A. G. Gano. 

Kennedy, Eckert & Co. 

J. Walker & Co. 

A. M. Thornton. 

L. A. Logan. 

M. C. Vanpelt. 

Louis Jacob & Co. 

Frank Dryer. 

John Gould. 

John E. Stone. 

Wm. Williamson. 

Jas. B. Johnston. 

B. A. Holden. 

G. W. C. Johnston. 

J. H. Bice. 

Philip Hinkle. 

A. Buchanan. 

Geo. F. Davis & Co. 

James Morrison & Co. 

J. A. Ogborn. 

Sam’l Davis, Jr., & Co. 

J. Y. Carnahan & Co. 

T. F. Eckert. 




19 


Geo. Shillito. 

Metcalf & Evans. 

M. Bailey. 

S. C. Newton. 

A. Judson Davis, 

H. D. Rodgers. 

Joseph Rawson. 

Jas^ A. Devou. 

Wilson, Eggleston & Co. 
Geo. Bogen, Jr. 

Taylor & Brother. 

John S. Taylor. 

M. W. Stone. 

Mapnet & Co. 

Hugh McBirney & Co. 
Elock & Fristor. 

Jacob Burnet, Jr. 

-S. C. Gerard. 

J. F. Mills. 

O. Owens. 

H. W. Sage. 

Wm. Henry Davis. 


Morrison & Rammelsberg. 
A. P. Cohen. 

Wm. W. Davis & Co. 

E. Smith & McAlpin. 
Wasson, Morgan & Co. 

S. G. Hubbard. 

Geo. Eustis. 

Geo. M. Hord & Co. 

J. H. Brunsman & Co. 

J. D. Balman & Co. 

J. L. Keck. 

Grove J. Penney & Co. 
Jos. P. Whittaker. 

C. E. Anderson. 

Lewis Worthington. 

A. E. Chamberlain. 
Thomas Phillips. 

Jae. Traber. 

Chas. Woodward, Jr.. 

John Cochnower. 

Miles Greenwood. 

Neave, Ward & Co.. 



LONG-SPAN BEIDGES. 


The following paper, signed by forty-seven members of the 
Ohio House of Representatives, nearly all of whom voted for the 
short-span bill when it passed the General Assembly, is herewith 
submitted as an evidence of the change of opinion upon the 
part of these members, after seeing and hearing the testimony 
presented against short-span bridges. It is proper to state that 
this paper was not presented to Senators for their signature: 

To the Honorable Members of the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States , in Congress assembled: 

The undersigned, members of the General Assembly of the State of Ohio, 
deeply impressed with the incalculable importance to the people of this State, 
as well as to the people of the entire Ohio and Mississippi Valleys, of a free 
and unobstructed navigation of the Ohio River, and from careful examination 
being fully satisfied that such navigation will be seriously and dangerously ob¬ 
structed by the erection of bridges across said river having a less span across the 
main channel than five hundred feet, and that such length of span may be built 
in a manner perfectly safe for all purposes of travel, do most earnestly pray that 
such legislation may be had by Congress as shall prevent the construction of 
bridges hereafter across said river having a less span across the main channel 
thereof than five hundred feet. 


J. B. Cockerill, Adams County. 
Francis B. Pond, Morgan County. 
Samuel C. Kerr, Jefferson County. 
W. T. Acker, Hocking County. 

John W. Kennon, Belmont County. 
Thomas M. Nichol, Belmont County. 
Levi Dungan, Jackson County. 
William Ritezel, Trumbull County. 

S. F. Kerr, Fayette County. 

William Shaw, Clermont County. 
James Parks, Sandusky County. 

John Lawson, Gallia County. 

W. D. Hill, Defiance County. 

Wm. Henry Scott, Hamilton County. 
S. M. Richardson, Washington Co. 


I. C. Pennisten, Pike County. 

J ames Sayler, Preble County. 

B. L. Hill, Erie County. 

George W. Brooke, Mahoning Co. 
N. B. Sherwin, Cuyahoga County. 

I. J. Finley, Ross County. 

L. McMarrell, Holmes County. 

E. M. Fitch, Brown County. 

Isaac Cusac, Hancock County. 

Eliel Headle 3 r , Monroe County. 

U. C. Rutter, Fairfield County. 
Ralph Leete, Lawrence County. 

J. C. Ullery, Miami County. 

A. J. Swaim, Vinton County. 

Wm. Larwill, jr., Ashland County. 




21 


James W. Newman, Scioto County. 

C. Hughes, Butler County. 

E. G. Denman, Williams County. 
Chas. Hare, N oble County. 

M. E. Gallup, Cuyahoga County. 
William Sisler, Summit County. 

Boss W. Anderson, Guernsy County. 
Henry Wanking, Hamilton County. 
Thoms Rough, Hardin County. 


J. Mason Dunn, Morrow County. 
M. C. Lawrence, Union County. 
Geo. W. Skaats, Hamilton County 
H. G. Kennett, Hamilton County. 
Peyton Hord, Marion County. 
Joseph Dilworth, Stark County. 
George Henricks, Perry County. 
George Crist, Hamilton County. 



ACTION 


OF 

STEAMBOAT OWNERS AND MASTERS- 


At a large meeting of owners and masters of steamboats, held 
.-at the rooms of the Cincinnati Charitable Marine Association, on 
the 7th day of March, 1868, the following report was submitted 
by the committee, and unanimously adopted: 

REPORT OF COMMITTEE. 

To the President and Members of the Cincinnati Charitable Marine Asso¬ 
ciation : 

Gentlemen: —Your committee to whom was referred the matter of inquir¬ 
ing into the character of the bridge which it is proposed to build across the 
Ohio River between Cincinnati and Newport, together with the effect which 
such a structure would have upon the navigation of the river, the cost of in¬ 
surance, and the use by steamers of the Public Landing, beg leave to submit 
their report. 

We have not been able definitely to ascertain the exact character of bridge 
which the company propose to build. The bill now before the Ohio Legis¬ 
lature, and also before Congress, does not define specially the kind of bridge to 
be built. Enough, however, has been learned to warrant your committee in 
the statement that the bridge is to be built upon piers placed in the river, with 
a draw for the passage of steamboats, and that it is to be used for the passage 
of railroad trains as well as for other travel. 

Your committee feel that they cannot too severely condemn a bridge of this 
kind, knowing, as they do, that it will be the means of causing annually great 
loss of property, and in many instances loss of life. The history of pier 
bridges on the navigable rivers of the West is too well known to navigators 
and those interested in the navigation of the rivers to need much comment at 
our hands. A reference to the Rock Island and Steubenville bridges is suffi¬ 
cient to draw attention to this class of structures. 

Each of these bridges causes a loss of property, annually, equal to the inter¬ 
est on the cost of a structure which would span the whole river, and leave it 
safe both to life and property. This being the case, we ask why it is that Con¬ 
gress and our State Legislature will permit a stream like the Ohio river, float¬ 
ing its millions of tons of commerce, in merchandise, iron, coal, lumber, &c., 



23 


enriching every city and town upon its shores, to he dammed up and obstructed 
by piers ? The Niagara bridge and the bridge between Covington and Cin¬ 
cinnati have clearly demonstrated the fact that our navigable rivers can be 
crossed by bridges on the suspension plan, without obstructing the channel of 
the river, or in any way rendering its navigation unsafe. 

If, then, the crossing of the Ohio River by bridges is narrowed down to a 
mere question of cost, we insist upon it that those who want them shall pay the 
cost of bridges which will leave the navigation free and uninterrupted. We 
admit that even suspension bridges will sometimes cause inconvenience to boats, 
in requiring that their chimneys shall be lowered to pass under them; but they 
do not cause danger to life, and destruction to property. As owners and mas¬ 
ters of steamboats, taking a selfish view only, we would prefer that there should 
be no bridges crossing the navigable rivers. 

But in this advanced age we are not permitted to hold to a purely selfish 
view upon this subject.. We recognize the fact that the commerce of this great 
country requires that the rivers shall be bridged, and when this is properly 
done we should withhold all objection. The commerce of the country equally 
requires that the rivers shall be left free and safe for havigation. 

A pier bridge at this city, in our narrow river, where there is such a constant 
passing and repassing of boats—where immense tows of coal and rafts of lum¬ 
ber are handled at almost all seasons of the year, would unquestionably be the 
cause, not merely of increased cost and danger, but of large actual loss of 
property. 

Those insuring boats of every description would undoubtedly have to pay 
larger rates, and those who from choice and necessity were their own insurers 
would be subject to greater risk. It will hardly be denied that it is a natural 
law in underwriting that increased charges must be made to cover increased 
risks, and it is also undeniable, that piers placed in the river here or elsewhere 
create a danger and risk which before did not exist. 

It is also the opinion of your committee, that in case this bridge is built, the 
daily packet boats now running between this city and the up-river ports, will 
have to abandon the use of the Public Landing, and find a landing above the 
bridge somewhere. They will hardly take the risk of running the gauntlet of 
these bridge-piers, endangering the lives of their passengers and the safety of 
their vessels and cargoes. 

JOHN C. RENO, 
DAVID GIBSON, 

D. COLLIER, 

JOHN KYLE, 

JAS. H. PEPPER. 

Subsequently, on the 3d day of April, 1868, the steamboat own 
ers and masters at a meeting held at the same place, unanimously 
adopted the following resolutions: 

Resolved , That while the steamboat owners and masters of Cincinnati ad¬ 
here to the statements and facts set forth in the report of the committee ap- 




24 


pointed by the C. C. M. Association, and adopted by that body on the 7th day 
of March, touching the projected bridge across the Ohio river, between Cin¬ 
cinnati and Newport, and believe that all bridges across the Ohio river, above 
the Falls, should span the whole river, where it is not more than twelve hun¬ 
dred feet wide; yet, in order that they may not seem to stand in factious oppo¬ 
sition to any improvement in the interest of Cincinnati, they now, by this 
resolution, agree that if the incorporators and stockholders of the said bridge 
will agree to construct the bridge as high above low water as the present Cov¬ 
ington suspension bridge, and with a span of not less than 500 feet over the 
channel, that they will make no opposition to it. 

Resolved, That we are unalterably opposed to the construction of draw-bridges 
on the navigable rivers of the West; and to all bridges on the Ohio which shall 
be less than one hundred feet above low water mark, and of less span over the 
channel at the river than five hundred feet, believing that such bridges, if 
built, will inflict incalculable damage to the commerce of the rivers, and to the 
cities and towns on their borders. 


LETTERS 


OP 

DISTINGUISHED CIVIL ENGINEERS. 


Office of John A. Roeblin-g, ) 
Trenton,. N. J., March 13, 1868. / 

Theo. Cook, Esq., Cincinnati: 

Dear Sir: — You desire me to give an opinion on the subject of bridging 
our large Western rivers for railroad or common traffic. This subject appears 
to be but little understood, even by those who are most interested in naviga¬ 
tion, and since legislation is but an expression of public opinion, it must be 
wrong and imperfect so long as public opinion is erroneous on this subject. 
Parties who were watching the interests of navigation heretofore, kept only 
one point in view; viz., sufficient elevation for the free passage of high 
smoke stacks. They always objected to draws, but they were willing to accept 
narrow spans, not as a matter of choice, but rather of necessity. 

The widest draws are, at best, intolerable nuisances, and should never be 
permitted vhere it is at all possible to avoid them. Where there is a heavy 
traffic over the bridge and also on the river both interests will suffer from draws. 
While the draw is open nothing can pass over the bridge, and vice vevsa. But 
the greatest objection? to draws is the danger to navigation. Witness, for in¬ 
stance, the draw in the Rock Island bridge, over the Mississippi river, which 
has been a great nuisance ever since this bridge was built. The large pivot 
pier which supports the draw offers a serious obstruction to the current, which, 
in high water, is so much and so powerfully deflected that it is almost impossible 
for steamers to steer clear of danger. Every draw in the country demonstrates 
its own nuisance, more or less. 

It is evident that there must be a compromise between the interests of free 
navigation and those of land traffic, but it appears to me that from this com¬ 
promise draws should be excluded by common consent, because they are equally 
dangerous and objectionable to navigation, as well as to the bridge travel. 

Railroad men may insist upon draws as a necessity on our Western rivers; 
but in order to pass trains over a high, bridge and steep grades all that is want¬ 
ed is a stationary engine and a wire'rope, to assist the train over the rise. In 
other words treat the bridge like an inclined plane and draws will be un¬ 
necessary. 

The general question,, how wide or narrow the spans of bridges should be on 
our Western rivers y is so important and involves so many issues that it is de- 




26 


deserving of a most thorough consideration. Are we not in danger for the 
want of a proper understanding of this subject, and, consequently, for want of 
proper and comprehensive legislation, to inflict the most serious injury upon 
the future navigation of these great national highways ? 

We owe it to our posterity to anticipate the future wants of commerce; at any 
rate, we have no right to wilfully or ignorantly obstruct it. During the next cen¬ 
tury the population of this country will have reached three hundred millions, 
and who can estimate the vast internal commerce which will then he carried on 
through the channels of our great Western rivers? The development of the 
coal trade alone will very soon justify the expenditure of sufficient capital to 
slack-water the Ohio River from Pittsburg to Louisville, for the purpose of ob¬ 
taining a sufficient depth of water throughout the year. This trade alone will, 
during the next century, expand to one hundred millions of tons annually, and 
how is this vast mineral wealth to he transported? Certainly not in the old- 
fashioned flat-boat, hut in well-built barges, as is already done, and towed up 
or down by powerful steam tugs. Not only coal, but all kinds of produce and 
merchandise will be carried in this manner, and at such rates that no railroad 
can compete with it. 

The same practice of navigation which prevails on the Hudson River now 
will, after a while, be introduced on our Western rivers—large tows, acres in 
extent, will be towed down. This mode of navigation will become general, 
because cheap freights are a necessity everywhere. And now let me ask the 
question, Will the future river interests put up quietly with the nuisance of 
draw-bridges and narrow spans? When the Ohio River shall be crossed by 
hundreds of bridges, and when the floating tonnage will be estimated by the 
hundred millions, shall this vast interest be forever subjected to the obstructions 
created by numerous piers, spans and draws ? 

On a former occasion I have expressed the opinion that no bridge should be 
allowed to be constructed over our Western rivers with spans of less than five 
hundred feet in the clear. Bridge builders and engineers, generally, will ob¬ 
ject—that such spans are impracticable for railroad traffic; but the Niagara 
bridge has forever settled this question, and its span is over eight hundred feet. 
Such bridges are no longer questions of impracticability, but simply questions 
of cost. 

On the Lower Ohio, and on the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers another im¬ 
portant issue is involved in this question, and that is, the safety of foundations. 
The bottoms and banks of those rivers are composed of alluvial material and 
fine floating sand. By the action of high floods, the channels are constantly 
being changed, and the river bed is scoured out in places to a great depth, 
sometimes fifty to sixty feet. Now, if the river is obstrucied by numerous 
piers, and divided into narrow spans, through which the water is forced, you 
will readily perceive how much the scouring action of the floods will thereby 
be increased. No bridge with narrow spans is safe in these rivers without 
rock foundations. The Rock Island bridge and Clinton bridge, over the Missis¬ 
sippi, are located where the river bed is hard and rocky; but at many other 
points no rock will be found at a less depth than fifty to one hundred feet. 


27 


But such deep foundations are very expensive; and it will he found more eco¬ 
nomical to decrease the number of piers, and increase the length of spans, than 
vice versa. 

\ I will close this long communication by repeating, that a general act should 
he passed by Congress, for our Western rivers, forbidding the use of draws, 
fixing the minimum of clear span at five hundred feet, with an elevation, in 
the center of the river, of no less than forty feet above high water. 

Kespectfully and truly, yours, 

JOHN A. ROEBLING. 


Office of John A. Roebling, > 
Trenton, N. J., April 7, 1868. J 

Theodore Cook, Esq. : 

My Dear Sir: — In your note of the 4th, you request me to state some of 
the facts relating to the practicability of large span railroad bridges. The fol¬ 
lowing railway bridges, all on leading lines and doing a heavy business, are 
Constructed on different plans, and have all stood the test of time: 

The Niagara bridge, in this country, with one clear span of 820 feet. 

The Steubenville bridge, over the Ohio, 320. 

The Brittanna bridge, in England, spans of 460 feet. 

The Saltash bridge, over the Tamer, England, spans of 455 feet. 

The Rhine bridge, at Cuilinburg, in Holland, spans of 500 feet. 

The Dirshau bridge, over the Weichsel, in Prussis, 390 feet. 

The Hogat bridge, in Prussia, 320 feet. 

The Rhine bridge, at Cologne, Prussia, 320 feet. 

The Rhine bridge, at Coblenz, Prussia, 320 feet. 

The Rhine bridge, at Mayence, Prussia, 332 feet. 

I might extend this list, hut if this number is not sufficient to establish 
“practicability,” no number and no argument will. When I recommended 500 
feet spans, I was fully aware that bridge builders and railroad men generally 
would object, because the erection of large spans certainly involves a little 
more cost and also a little more skill. But by combining the suspension prin¬ 
ciple with the truss, as I have often recommended, a considerable saving will 
be effected. Spans of 500 feet, on this plan, will not cost more than ordinary 
lattice or truss plans of 350 feet. 

For the Cincinnati and Newport bridge I would recommend a trussed sus¬ 
pension bridge, with a middle span of 700 to 800 feet, and two half spans of 350 
to 400 feet, as the best, and also the cheapest in the end. The various stories 
circulated about the Niagara bridge are all nonsense. That bridge will admit 
of the highest practicable speed for passing trains, but it would be madness to 
permit it over that fearful chasm. 

Truly yours, 

JOHN A. ROEBLING. 


/ 


t * 



28 


Office of St. Louis and Illinois Bridge Co.*, \ 
St. Louis, April 7th, 1868. / 


Mr. Theodore Cook : 


Dear Sir : — In reply to your letter, I beg to say that no published official 
report of this bridge has yet been made. I am at present engaged in the prep¬ 
aration of one, and as the Company expect to ask our citizens to make a loan 
of the city’s credit, to the extent of $4,000,000, in aid of the enterprise at the 
next election, the report will be an elaborate one. It will not, however, be 
published for nearly a month, as it will contain several diagrams and illustra¬ 
tions, now in the hands of the engravers. I am glad to see the friends of river 
navigation moving so earnestly to prevent the obstruction of our great marine 
highways. After the able letter of Mr. Koebling, recently published in one of 
our city papers, and which you have doubtless seen, I feel that I can say nothing 
to add to its force. 

By the principle of arch, either suspended or upright, we are enabled to con¬ 
struct much longer spans without increasing the cost of the structure, than is 
possible by any of the methods of trusses yet devised. Being placed in posses¬ 
sion of the calculations made for the truss bridge at this city (by the consolida¬ 
tion of the two companies), I am able to prove that the bridge I am construct¬ 
ing with three spans of about 500 feet each, can be more cheaply built than the 
truss bridge designed for the rival company, with two spans of but 364 feet 
(or a clear water-way to each of 350 feet), and the remaining spans of 240 feet. 

The greater strength of cast steel makes it cost considerably less than that 
of iron in long spans; and as its compressive strength is greatly in excess of 
its tensile strength, it seems peculiarly fitted for the construction of upright 
arches. There is nothing to prevent the spanning of your river at Cincinnati 
with arches of 1,000 feet with entire safety, and at a cost not greatly in excess 
of 350 feet trusses. In every form of trusses there must be an upper and lower 
chord, one for compression and one for tension. The arch alone, of all forms 
of bridging, requires but one of these members. The suspended arch requires 
the tension member only, and the upright arch the compression one. The 
anchors of the compression bridge supply the place of the upper, or compres¬ 
sion member of the Link truss, by preventing the points of support from being 
pulled together, the strain at the points of support (or towers) being transfer¬ 
red directly to the anchors. In the upright arch, the abutments supply the 
place of the tension chord in the bow-string girder. The same principle per¬ 
vades every form of truss known, and as there is no great difference in the 
weight or cost of one or the other of these members, if one or the other be 
dispensed with, we have at least the cost of it to invest in masonry before we 
incur any additional expense by substituting the arch. As, however, the cost 
of the truss rapidly augments as the span is increased, while the arch does not, 
in the same ratio, we are enabled to construct large spans in that form with 
much greater economy. 

In the short limits of a letter like this, I cannot explain why the arch is so 


29 


much more economical, except in the brief manner above stated; nor would it, 
perhaps, be becoming in me to attempt to do so here. When my report is pub¬ 
lished, I shall be happy to send you a copy. 

Very truly, &c. 

JAS. B. EADS, 

Civil Engineer. 


Pittsburgh, Penn., May 23, 1868. 

To Theo. Cook, Esq., 

Chairman of Committee Chamber of Commerce , of Cincinnati: 

Dear Sir: —Your letter of the 22d has been received, and I hasten to an¬ 
swer it in a general way; not being prepared to enter upon so important a sub¬ 
ject in a professional manner, and in detail. As an engineer, I have planned 
and built some important bridges — one over the Susquehanna river, at Harris¬ 
burg, over four thousand feet in length; but I have not professionally superin¬ 
tended any bridges having spans so great as five hundred feet. 

I was familiar with the old wooden bridge at Eairmount, Philadelphia, of 
three hundred and forty feet span, and afterward with the present suspension 
bridge, erected in its place, three hundred and fifty feet, constructed by 
Charles Ellett, Jr., Esq., aided by Jno. A. Koebling, Esq.; afterwards 
with suspension aqueduct and two suspension bridges, erected by John A. 
Eoebling, Esq., at Pittsburgh; also with the suspension bridge at Wheeling, 
1,020 feet span, erected by Charles Ellet, Jr., Esq. 

When Mr. Eoebling, was planning his great Eail Eoad bridge over the 
Niagara, he asked my opinion respecting the engineering merit of his proposed 
plan for stiffening a span of eight hundred feet, as designed, for heavy rail¬ 
road traffic. My opinion was, and I so said, that it would do for moderate 
rates of speed. He remarked, that railroad engineers generally, both in this 
country and in Europe, had predicted that it would be a failure. I thought 
otherwise. He built the bridge; and after it had been some time in operation, 
I took occasion to examine the working of it, and was much gratified to find 
that it was stiffer than I had anticipated, and answers well, not only for rail¬ 
road traffic of the heaviest kind, but common road travel besides. 

It was a bold piece of engineering on the part of Mr. Eoebling ; and, in 
my opinion, he deserves the lasting commendations of every American engineer, 
and indeed of every engineer in the world, for its conception and its complete 
triumph. It has been in constant use many years, and I have been assured by 
those who know, that it has not failed, but subserves its double purpose of ac- 
commodatimg ratlroad and common road traffic admirably. 

Bridges on a smilar general plan, of not more than five hundred feet span 
(or three hundred feet less than the Niagara bridge), can, in my opinion, be 
constructed over the Ohio river, that will answer perfectly well for railroad 
and other traffic. 

I have no doubt that bridges of five hundred feet span, adapted to railroad 



and other uses, can be constructed without using the suspension principle; but 
they would be much more costly, and I am not at present prepared to enter 
upon the consideration of such plans beyond this general opinion. 

"With the experience before me, I cannot hesitate, as an engineer, to express 
the opinion that bridges of five hundred feet span, for railroad and other pur¬ 
poses, ean be constructed across the Ohio river. And, from my experience on 
this particular river, I think that the interests of the country demand that 
every bridge hereafter to be constructed over this important stream should be 
required to have one span of not less than five hundred feet over the main 
channel. 

Yery respectfully, 

Your Obedient Servant, 

W. MILNOR ROBERTS, 

Civil Engineer . 


THE CINCINNATI BRIDGE COMPANY 

AND 

THE ST. LOUIS CONVENTION OF ENGINEERS. 


The following, from the St. Louis (Mo.) Democrat of May 22d, 
containing extracts from the report of Mr. James B. Eads, Chief 
Engineer of the splendid bridge now in course of construction at 
St. Louis, is submitted, as a fitting reply to a pamphlet circulated 
at Columbus, Ohio, and perhaps at Washington, entitled, “Facts 
relating to the Bridge Question.” Mr. Eads’ report in full will 
soon appear, and is respectfully commended to the attention of 
Congress. 

A lively controversy is just now going on between the new Bridge company? 
at Cincinnati, and those who are opposed to the obstruction of the Ohio by 
bridges of less than five hundred feet span. The Bridge company have issued 
a pamphlet, a copy of which is before us, entitled a Facts Relating to the Bridge 
Question ,” the object of which is to prove that five hundred feet spans are un¬ 
safe. In endeavoring to establish this fact, several extracts are published from 
the report of the Convention of Engineers, called here last August, by Mr. 
Boomer, of Chicago. We stated to our readers at the time, that the sole pur¬ 
pose of the convention was to defeat, if possible, the erection of the St. Louis 
Bridge Company’s bridge, designed by Mr. James B. Eads. As the pamphlet 
in question is calculated to extend and increase the false impression created at 
that time regarding the safety and economy of the bridge now building here, 
we have taken the liberty of publishing the subjoined extract from the official 
report of Mr. Eads, engineer in chief of the work. We commend it to the 
careful perusal of the public in general, and especially to those interested in 
the controversy at Cincinnati. The report is now in press in our job office, 
and will soon be ready for distribution The dignified courtesy and charity 
with which he endeavors to shield a body of nis professional brethren from the 
charge of permitting themselves to be used for a discreditable purpose, which 
some unworthy member, in preparing their report, has evidently made them 
liable to, and where Mr. Eads was to have been the injured party, does not in 
any degree lessen the irresistible proofs which he gives of the safety and prac¬ 
ticability of five hundred feet spans, or of the incorrect statement made in the 
report of the convention, that there was novengineering.precedent for such spans. 




82 


CONVENTION OF ENGINEERS. 

The organization of two companies about the same time for the purpose of 
bridging the river at St. Louis, and the rivalry existing between them for 
nearly twelve months prior to their consolidation under the present organiza¬ 
tion, was the cause of many difficulties thrown in the way of the construction 
of your bridge. One of these companies, generally known as the Boomer 
company, called together a convention of engineers last August to consider the 
question of bridging the Mississippi river at this point. Although composed 
in part of many distinguished and able engineers, it was known to have been 
held solely in the interests of that company. The plans designed for that com¬ 
pany by Mr. S. S. Post, C. E., were laid before it and approved hy the conven¬ 
tion. The plans designed for your bridge, and adopted by you, were not solic¬ 
ited by the convention for its examination, and at no time were those plans un¬ 
der consideration by it. At no time did the convention take up the subject of 
bridging the river by arches , but simply by trusses , and it therefore very prop¬ 
erly recommend that no spans exceeding three hundred and fifty feet in the 
clear should be adopted. 

Notwithstanding all these facts, it was industriously reported by your oppo¬ 
nents that the plans adopted by your bridge had been condemned by that con¬ 
vention as unsafe, enormously extravagant and utterly impracticable; and 
that it had also condemned the location of it as very injudicious. It is because 
these statements are even yet repeated by parties interested in defeating the 
erection of the bridge, and because they are credited by many persons anxious 
for its completion, that I call your attention to them, and pronounce them one 
and all utterly untrue. One effect of these misrepresentations has been to cre¬ 
ate a belief in the minds of many that the plans adopted by you will involve a 
much greater outlay than is really necessary. This impression has been 
strengthened, no doubt, by the fact that those plans represent piers and abut¬ 
ments much more massive, and superstructure far more graceful and elegant 
than any form of truss bridge yet constructed. Yet one of the most beautiful 
and graceful structures in this or any other country, with its massive masonry 
and enormous span, is one of the cheapest ever erected. I refer to the sus¬ 
pended arch bridge of Roebling’s at Niagara. 

We are too prone to associate our contemplation of the beautiful in archi¬ 
tecture and engineering with an idea of costliness, which is not always just. 
It is easy to prove, beyond the possibility of a question, that in no other form 
could the material in those members of your, bridge which impart to it the 
chief feature of its gracefulness, be used with such economy. 

It rarely occurs that any great enterprise is undertaken and completed with¬ 
out some opposition, no matter how praiseworthy the purpose or how many 
millions will be benefited by the work. If the private interests of some one 
or more individuals are affected by it, opposers, both open and secret, will be 
on the alert to assail it, and delay or defeat its consummation. It would be 
strange, indeed, if your undertaking met with nothing but encouragement, 
and proved an exception to a rule that is, unfortunately, almost invariable. 


33 


From its inception, you. were opposed by a rival bridge company, whose antag¬ 
onism was stimulated and encouraged by the active or passive co-operation of 
members of two wealthy monopolies, (the ferry and transfer companies) and 
by others, actuated by motives best known to themselves. 

The consolidation of the two bridge companies has removed the rivalry 
between them, and every legal doubt as to your chartered privileges also; but 
the opposing influences of the ferry and transfer companies remain. It would 
have been wonderful if the plans of your bridge should have escaped, not only 
severe criticism, but unjust misrepresentation also, in a controversy that has 
prominently occupied the attention of the public for several months past, and 
elicited great warmth of feeling. In this controversy, the safety of the bridge 
has occasioned much discussion, and the most ridiculous assertions on this point 
were again and again repeated. Originating with those who have opposed the 
erection of the bridge, these objections have been adopted, in some instances, 
by men really anxious for your success, but who have not had the time, or felt 
sufficient personal interest in the matter to investigate it for themselves. Oth¬ 
ers again, occupying the position of wealthy citizens, have perhaps felt the 
necessity of some apology for not aiding an enterprise so commendable, and 
have willingly adopted these misrepresentations to excuse their own indif¬ 
ference. Instead of generously abstaining from placing obstacles in the path 
of an enterprise that should command the best wishes of every one, they have 
in this way aided its most determined opposers. 

The effort to create a want of confidence in the safety of your bridge was 
supported, to a certain extent, by the fact that this convention declared in its 
report that there was no engineering precedent for a span of five hundred feet, 
and also by stating that ‘'there has been no bridge of the character of that 
which (in our judgment) is required at this place yet constructed, to furnish us 
with any reliable and certain data on the serious questions of materials and 
workmanship in spans of such great length.” 

By reference to a copy of the official publication, in my office, made by the 
Dutch government in January, 1866, of the details and plans of the Kuilin- 
burg bridge over the Leek, an arm of the Khine in Holland, you will see that 
its greatest opening is spanned by a truss of one hundred and fifty-seven metres, 
or five hundred and fifteen feet, in length, constructed on the method used in 
the bridge at Hartford, Connecticut. This bridge has a double-track railway 
through it, and this truss weighs nearly two thousand and four hundred tons, 
and is partly of steel. 

In 1801 the great Scottish engineer, Thomas Telford, proposed to replace the 
old London Bridge with one of cast iron, having a single arch of six hundred 
feet span. His suspension bridge over the Menia Straits is one of the most 
substantial structures of the kind in the world, and spans five hundred and 
seventy feet. A cast iron arch bridge of a single span of five hundred feet 
was proposed by him in preference to the suspension one, but was rejected by 
the government, because the arch gave less room on each side of the channel 
for sailing vessels. 

For forty years this remarkable man continued to enrich Scotland and Eng¬ 
land with some of the most stupendous and successful triumphs of engineering 


34 


skill to be found in Great Britain. The erection of more than one thousand 
and two hundred bridges by him, many of them cast iron, made his experience 
in bridge construction, superior to that of any man of his period. Many of 
those erected by him are among the largest and most substantial structures in 
that country. 

A select committee was appointed by Parliament to examine his plans for 
the six hundred feet arch, and the opinions of the most eminent, practical, 
and scientific men of the British Empire were taken before it on the subject, 
among whom were James Watt, John Rennie, Professors Robinson and 
Playfair of Edinburgh, and Hutton of Woolwich. The plans were approved 
and adopted, and the work upon this stupendous arch was actually begun. 

Although this great work was ultimately abandoned, it was from no want of 
confidence in the plan, but because (according to Stephenson) the highth of the 
arch (sixty-five feet) involved the necessity of raising the streets leading to it, 
by which too much valuable property would have been depreciated. In a 
private letter to a friend, Talford informs him that his plans were adopted for 
this bridge; he says: “ If they will only provide the means, and give me elbow 
room, I see my way as clear as mending the auld brig at the burn.” 

Surely, the recorded judgment of such a man as Telford, when sustained by 
the most eminent men of his day, asserting the practicability of a cast iron 
arch of six hundred feet span in 1801, furnishes some “engineering precedent” 
to justify a span of one hundred feet less in 1867. 

When we take into account that the limit of the elastic strength of cast iron 
in compression is only about eight thousand pounds to the square inch, and 
that in cast steel it is at least seven or eight times greater; and consider the 
advance that has been made in the knowledge of bridge-building since the days 
of Telford, it is safe to assert that the project of throwing a single arch of cast 
steel, two thousand feet in length, over the Mississippi, is less bold in design, 
and fully as practicable as his cast iron arch of six hundred feet span, Engin¬ 
eering precedents have nothing to do with the question of length of span in a 
bridge. It is a money question altogether. The problem to be solved is sim¬ 
ply, what length of span will pay best? This being decided, and profit enough 
assured to justify the outlay, engineering skill and knowledge will be found 
fully equal to its accomplishment, no matter what may be the length required. 
That one made of a material eight times as strong as cast iron is unsafe or im¬ 
practicable five hundred feet long—is almost too ridiculous to be noticed in a 
country where the assertion is rebuked by Wernwag’s wooden arch of three 
hundred and forty feet, which spans the Schuylkill at Philadelphia. 

It must be remembered that the report of the convention has the names of 
several able engineers appended to it who were not present at its meetings; 
that those who were present considered no method of construction except 
trusses; that its deliberations for the solution of the grave questions involved 
in bridging this river occupied scarcely a week; and that it was convened 
almost solely in the interest of Mr. Boomer, who then controlled one of the 
charters of your consolidated company, and the patent for the truss bridge he 
intended building. When these facts are considered in connection with each 
other, it will be understood w T hy the plans for your bridge were not solicited 


35 


for comparison with Mr. Post’s patent truss; and when you take the statement 
of Mr. Post himself, as chairman of the committee on superstructure, that to 
span a clear opening of five hundred feet with his truss, would cost as much 
as to span two openings of three hundred and fifty feet each, and one and 
a half of two hundred and fifty feet each, in addition; or that the super¬ 
structure of the bridge, if built on his plan, would cost $750,000 more with one 
five hundred foot span than if two of three hundred and fifty feet were used, 
you will understand fully why the preference was given (on the score of econ¬ 
omy) to spans of three hundred and fifty feet. 

An investigation by the convention of the plans adopted by you, would have 
revealed the fact that the superstructure of your bridge, possessing greater 
strength than the one it endorses, and with its great openings, could be erected 
for about four hundred thousand dollars less than the truss bridge approved by 
them, with its greatest spans of but three hundred and fifty feet; and no part 
■of this saving is absorbed by cost of foundations, as those approved by it, on 
account of the great quantity of iron required, are more expensive also than yours. 
The proof of these facts will be found in another part of this report, and they 
are set forth in a manner that admits of no refutation. 

It is, however, not so easy to understand why a body so intelligent as this 
convention, should forget the authority of Telford and his eminent cotempora¬ 
ries, and the five hundred feet truss bridge over the Leek at Kuilinburg, in 
Holland, and be led into the error of asserting that there was no “engineering 
precedent” for a span of five hundred feet. If it were expected to span this f 
river with an exact copy of some bridge now standing elsewhere, the necessary 
data could be obtained and applied without convoking so much ability. Any re¬ 
spectable bridge building firm in the country has, no doubt, sufficient engineer¬ 
ing talent constantly in its service for such an emergency, and could have had 
the requisite plans copied, and the structure erected, without calling a conven¬ 
tion of such distinguished gentlemen to deliberate upon them. When no “en¬ 
gineering precedent” exists, however, and where data “on the serious questions 
of material and workmanship in spans of such great length” are not supplied 
by structures of equal magnitude, there is a necessity for bringing to the consider¬ 
ation of the subject the profoundest thought, based upon a thorough acquaintance 
with the strength of materials as experience and experiment alone can furnish, 
together with a knowledge, obtained by careful study and observation, of 
the laws which guide us in the combination of those materials. 

For increasing the dimensions of a truss beyond any now existing, a knowl¬ 
edge of the strength of materials, and the laws that govern their application, 
was sufficient to enable the convention to deduce with entire safety, such data 
from the experience furnished by the four hundred and fifty foot truss of Bru¬ 
nei, over the Tamar, the 397 feet trusses of the Dirshau bridge, over the 
Weichsel, and a dozen others of lesser span, if the Kuilinburg truss were not 
'in existence. 

The wording of the report, inconsiderately, and I believe quite unjustly to 
bhe members of the convention, makes that body seem to condemn the adop¬ 
tion, not simply of a truss of five hundred feet, but a span of that length, 
whereas it really investigated no other methods of construction to determine 




36 

their relative economy with the truss. It simply compared the five hundred 
and the three hundred and fifty feet trusses with each other; and instead of being, 
content to condemn the use of the long one on the score of economy alone, 
which would certainly have been sufficient, it thoughtlessly gives a reason for 
not using a five hundred feet span that is not only unsupported by truth, but 
which is also a discreditable one to a profession whose greatest merit lies in its 
ability to overcome difficulties by the application of physical laws, without the 
aid of precedents. By this negligent (or adroit) wording of the report, the 
professional reputation of the members is made to injure a kindred enterprise 
of whose existence they were not ignorant, by making each one of them ap¬ 
pear to condemn the plans of a rival structure they had never seen. A thing 
which no one of them would do deliberately, if he valued his own reputation. 

The biographer of Telford relates that a scheme for a broad ship canal was 
started to connect the Mersey, opposite Liverpool, with the estuary of the- 
Dee, the object being to enable shipping to avoid the shoals and sand banks 
that obstruct the entrance to the Mersey. Telford entered on the project with 
great zeal, and his name was widely quoted in connection with it. It appear¬ 
ed, however, that one of its projectors, Avho had secured the right of pre-emp¬ 
tion of the land on which the only possible entrance to the canal could be- 
formed, suddenly sold out for a large sum to the corporation of Liverpool, 
who were opposed to the plan. His biographer says that “ Telford, disgusted 
at being made the instrument of an apparent fraud upon the public, destroyed 
all the documents relating to the scheme, and never spoke of it afterward, ex¬ 
cept in terms of extreme indignation. ’ 

Considering that the convention was assembled solely in the interests of a 
rival company, and after the fact of your adopting five hundred feet spans had 
been published, the inference drawn from this part of the report is quite con¬ 
clusive that the eminent reputation and distinguished standing of its members, 
have been used for a purpose quite similar to that related of Telford; and 
knowing that the same keen regard for rectitude displayed by that engineer, is. 
shared in by almost every member of a profession based on laws incapable of 
deception, and the daily application of which, in the routine of their duties, 
naturally inculcates a love of all that is truthful and correct; I feel assured 
that they have cause to feel, and doubtless do feel, equally indignant with Telford.. 

If there were no engineering precedent for five hundred feet spans, can it be 
possible that our knowledge of the science of engineering is so limited as not 
to teach us whether such plans are safe and practicable ? Must we admit that 
because a thing never has been done it never can be, when our knowledge and 
judgment assure us that it is entirely practicable ? This shallow reasoning would 
have defeated the laying of the Atlantic cable, the spanning of the Menai Straits,, 
the conversion of Harlem lake into a garden, and left the terrors of the Eddy- 
stone without their warning light. The Rhine and the sea would still be alter¬ 
nately claiming dominion over one-hal-f of the territory of a powerful king¬ 
dom, if this miserable argument had been suffered to prevail against men who 
knew, without “an engineering precedent,” that the river could be controlled,, 
and a curb put upon the ocean itself. 


RATES OF RIVER FREIGHTS. 


Cincinnati, June 1 , 1868. 

To the Committee of Chamber of Commerce: 

Gentlemen: —In compliance with your request, we herewith furnish you 
the present rates of freights, via river transportation, from this city to the ports 
named. 


To New Orleans, La.... distance 1,590 miles 


25 cents per 100 pounds. 


To Memphis, Tenn. 

CC 

790 

cc 

...18 to 25 

CC 

a 

To St. Louis, Mo. 

cc 

750 

CC 

...15 to 20 

CC 

cc 

r Po Cvtro Tit 

cc 

550 

cc 

.15 

Cl 

cc 

To Louisville, Ky. 

CC 

150 

cc 

.6 to 10 

CC 

cc 

To Parkersburg, AY. Ya. 

Cl 

300 

cc 


cc 

cc 

To AYheeling, AY. A T a. 

cc 

400 

cc 

...10 to 12£ 

a 

cc 

To Pittsburgh, Pa....,.*.. 

Cl 

500 

cc 

..12£ to 15 

c C 

cc 

To Nashville, Tenn. 

cc 

690 

cc 

...15 to 25 

cc 

Cl 


The rates for towing iron ore from St. Louis to Cincinnati, distance 750 
miles, is $3,00 per ton, of 2,240 pounds; and from St. Louis to Pittsburgh, dis¬ 
tance 1,250 miles, $4.50 to $5.00 per ton, of 2,240 pounds. Nearly all ship¬ 
ments of heavy manufactured articles from Pittsburgh to St. Louis, this year, 
have been carried at 15 cents to 20 cents per 100 pounds the whole distance of 
1,250 miles. 

ROSE & BATCHELOR, 

Steamboat Agents , 21 Public Landing. 

BRYSON & BENNET, 

No. 18 Public Landing. 

E. S. BUTLER & CO., 

No. 16 Public Landing . 

* AY. S. GETTY, 

No. 14 Public Landing . 

ROBINSON & MOSSET, 

No. 4 Main Street . 


















r 


\ 







P 










ft, 






















% 












































